Actor-network theory - Part one: conceptual frameworks

Chapter 2 Analysing the policy process

2.1 Part one: conceptual frameworks

2.1.3 Actor-network theory

Actor-network theory (ANT) offers a powerful framework for understanding policy implementation and the participation of actors within a policy network. In my research, I draw on ideas from Actor Network Theory (ANT) to conceptualise the development and implementation of policy as a process of translation (Callon, 1986; Edwards, 2009; Gaskel

& Hepburn, 1998; Hamilton, 2012). It is important to stress that this research by no means takes a traditional actor network theory approach. I view ANT as a toolbox of ideas rather than a single theory, which has enabled me to draw on specific theoretical concepts suitable for exploring the implementation of TSF. I therefore refer to my research as an

‘ANT-inspired study’ (Fenwick, 2010) since, similar to Ball et al., (2010, p. 16), I have reservations about claiming to be a ‘full subscriber to ANT’²⁶.

In this section, I discuss key contributions of ANT to policy analysis. I then provide a brief overview of ANT as an ‘approach’ but stress that it should not be understood as a single theory. This thesis draws on specific concepts and ideas from ANT, namely the model of translation and the concept of the ‘token’, which I discuss/define in detail and show how I have applied them in my research to explore the participation of institutional actors. As a policy is enacted, it changes. Through the concept of translation, and viewing the policy agenda as a ‘token’, ANT helps us to understand the roles that institutional interests and agendas play in the (re)formulation of policy.

An overview of the ANT approach

The key aim of ANT is to suggest analytic methods that reflect the mess, disorder, and ambivalences that organise phenomena in a given society. ANT’s roots lie in post-structuralism, and it has mostly been employed in the areas of sociology, science and technology, technological innovation, and human computer interaction. It is a relatively novel approach with regard to its use in education. Nevertheless, Fenwick and Edwards (2010) argue for its sustained use in the intervention of educational research, policy, and practice, having used it extensively in their own research. However, they warn that ANT

“is not for telling us about educational issues; it is a way of intervening in educational issues to reframe how we might enact and engage with them” (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010).

26 Because it would not be appropriate to use elements of ANT that do not ‘fit’ with my overall research objectives, I have been mindful of this in my selection and development of a conceptual framework. Murphy (2013) warns that it is important not to feel restricted by a theoretical framework, and throughout this process I have been aware of ANT’s tendency to make research findings too abstract. My ultimate aim in writing this research is to contribute not only to the wider field of education policy analysis, but also to provide evidence for policy-makers, thereby informing current policy processes in Scottish education. Although I find it helpful to refer to my approach as “ANT-inspired”, I refrain from using heavy ANT terminology for this reason.

ANT has been described as one of the more ‘controversial’ approaches in the social sciences (Rimpilainen, 2009), as it was originally developed as a criticism of traditional Sociology for ‘disregarding’ the role of the material in analysis of social reality. ANT affords equal importance to both social and material, and sees society as being something that is constructed from networks of relations between humans and non-humans (Latour, 2005).

As such, the most important assumption of ANT is that human beings should not be treated any differently from ‘non-humans’, “without the non-humans, the humans would not last for a minute” (Latour, 2004, p. 91). This is because everyday things, and parts of these everyday things, such as behaviours, intentions, reports, furniture, conversations, as well as individual people, are assumed to possess capabilities of exerting force, assembling

together, changing, and being changed by these other things. As these ‘things’ come together, they form a limitless number of networks that continue to expand across space and time.

Many of its forebears, such as Bruno Latour and John Law, refuse to define it as a theory, stating that it cannot be described as a “single, stable or identifiable theoretical framework”

(Fenwick & Edwards, 2010, p. 2). Instead, it is often referred to as a set of ‘tools’,

‘sensibilities’ and ‘methods of analysis’ (Law, 2004, p. 595), as an ‘array of practices’

(Fenwick & Edwards, 2010, p. iix), and as a “highly diffuse cloud of diverse studies and approaches” (Fenwick, 2010, p. 118). The reluctance to define it stems from concerns that explaining ANT would only work to ‘distort’ or ‘domesticate’ it (Fenwick & Edwards, 2012) as “only dead theories and dead practices celebrate their identify” (Law, 1999, p.

10). Rimpilainen (2009) suggests that ANT should therefore by recognised as a series of

‘tools’ that have functions: to collect data and make sense of it.

One striking -and perhaps surprising- feature of ANT research related to this, is the tendency for its researchers to avoid using explicit ANT-associated terminology, referring to their work instead as ‘explorations of complexity’, ‘material semiotics’ or ‘sociology of science and technology’ (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010). There may be a number of reasons for this apparent distancing; perhaps related to a perceived fragility of ANT as an

approach. It is possible that this fragility is heightened by its insistence that it is not a theory, and associated claims about what it can and cannot be used for.

ANT, therefore, with its array of concepts and tools, allows researchers the flexibility to

‘map out’ how these ‘things’ come together to form networks. Networks are formed through things being invited or excluded. These things then develop links or associations between themselves, through which they can exert force. Associations are developed through ‘minute negotiations’, and Fenwick and Edwards (2010) suggest that ANT is particularly useful for exploring how these negotiations occur and amongst which entities,

“[t]hings – not just humans, but the parts that make up humans and non-humans – persuade, coerce, seduce, resist and compromise each other as they come together”

(Fenwick & Edwards, 2010, p. 4). They also suggest, that the ways in which these things come together do not just differ in terms of the force that they are driven by, but by the ability for them to be merely pretence, or consist of a partial connection that then

disappears. By employing ANT, these associations and their effects can be traced, and the way in which these networks control and direct “actions, flows of movement and choices in space in time” can be captured.

A network can therefore be regarded as an “assemblage of materials brought together and linked through processes of translation that perform a particular function” (Fenwick &

Edwards, 2010). A network can act to ‘stabilise’ dynamic events, into a durable object, such as a report. If the Donaldson Review that led to the development of the policy text,

‘Teaching Scotland’s Future’, is taken as an example, it can be postulated that it brings together and freezes in one form: a number of formal and informal meetings and

conversations conducted in private and public spaces, a range of voices and opinions of different stakeholders nationally and internationally, a variety of conflicts and debates between key actors, and many explored and discarded ideas and possibilities. This policy text then circulates across “vast spaces, gathering allies, shaping thoughts and actions and thus creating new networks” (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010). Depending on the amount of allies and networks (and indeed who or what these allies are and what these networks represent), the policy agenda set out in the text can become stronger, weaker, or completely distorted.

ANT as a method of policy analysis

A number of educational researchers have recently drawn on elements of ANT to research the policy process (Gorur, 2011, 2014; Hamilton, 2012²⁷; Watson & Michael, 2016).

Hamilton (2012) demonstrates what can be gained by applying the core principles of ANT to policy analysis in her research on recent national education reform in England, Skills for Life (Hamilton, 2009; Hamilton & Hillier, 2006). ANT, as a theoretical and philosophical approach, understands and validates the idea of policy processes as messy, fluid, uncertain, and temporal, and offers resources for the exploration and uncovering of power. Hamilton (2012) suggests that it is best used for following the detailed unfolding of policy

implementation, and that it can be useful for tracing connections between the local and the global, as well as the micro-connections between actors in a policy network.

Furthermore, ANT allows us to see how policy implementation can be successful, and why particular policies may appear to be stronger than others. Nespor (2002, p. 95) writes that the “meanings of an event are constituted by hooking it up to moving networks of people acting with through, and by virtue of their entanglements with durable artefacts, structures and materials”. If we apply this to policy implementation, we can see that a policy agenda hooks on to other actors and discourses, and this is essentially how policy ideas and agendas spread. If we take TSF as an example, we can see how it has ‘hooked on’ to the wider educational reform agenda in Scotland, becoming interwoven into the discourse around leadership and teacher quality, as promoted by recent GTCS developments such as Professional Update and the new standards.

Fischer (2003), along with Hajer and Wagenaar (2003), have shown that policy translation occurs through a process of argumentation and paperwork negotiated between actors at all levels. Hamilton & Hillier (2007) write that much of what we consider to be ‘policy’ is thrashed out in the oral and written exchanges between different groups and key players.

This is similar to Ozga’s (2000) comment about contestation and struggle, discussed earlier in this chapter. The shape of policy is affected by how convincing and inclusive these exchanges are, and whether they are accepted or rejected by the key actors. She continues, the terms of these debates and discourses are powerful mechanisms for the exclusion of certain groups and perspectives. The opportunities for deliberation are determined in part by the formal consultative spaces, and partly by informal networks that exist. This

27 See also Fenwick (2010); Mulachy (2011); Nicoll (2006)

reiterates the importance of exploring the nature of these formal and informal spaces, as well as who or what is included and excluded from them.

Translation and the concept of the token

Translation is an ANT term which is used to describe what happens when “entities, human and non-human, come together and connect, changing one another to form links” (Fenwick

& Edwards, 2010, p. 9). It is through translation that networks are formed and can become stable and durable, and it is through networks that power is exercised.

In her analysis of Skills for Life, a recent policy initiative, Hamilton (2012) utilises Callon’s (1986) sociology of translation, looking at three ‘moments’ in the life of this initiative. Callon shows that translation occurs through a number of ‘moments’, and Hamilton suggests that the use of the term ‘moment’ suggests two things: a freezing of chronological time sequence to allow us to look at an event closely, and also ‘moment’ in the sense of the pivotal point around which events turn. This is useful for looking at a policy process because policy moments occur in real time as events, but their occurrence is also repeated, simultaneously experienced, and performed by multiple actors during the process of enactment (Ball et al., 2012). They extend over time and are embedded in overlapping time scales (Lemke, 2000).

Hamilton (2012, p. 45) sees the first two moments of the process of translation -

problematisation and interessement - as hypothetical. Problemtization can be understood as a moment of definition: defining who and what is part of the network and who or what is excluded from it. In this moment, a policy agenda only exists on paper as an idea, or in the mind of the person who first defines it. In the moment of interessement, attempts are made to impose and stabilise the identity of actors identified in the first moment. This requires links between actors to be interrupted and weakened, thereby creating a space in which the policy can grow and fend off competing policy initiatives. Examples of these mechanisms might be a sequence of documents that describes the new policy agenda and infrastructure that will replace previous policy reforms and ‘lock allies into place’.

The third moment, enrolment, is where material elements and devices are assembled to support actors to join the network. Hamilton (2012) suggests that one example of this stage might be the development of a new research centre. Within the context of TSF, the

establishment of the NPG might be conceptualised as a moment of enrolment. However, it is important to note that setting up a structure for the participation of actors might not necessarily lead to the enrolment of all actors in the policy agenda.

The final moment of translation, mobilisation, is where ‘the few come to speak as the many’. It is here that previously unstable policy ideas are stabilised and represented by

‘one voice’ and policy might be regarded as ‘effective’, but any perceived success is only temporary, given the unfinished nature of translation. In reality, ANT asserts that it is impossible for translation to come to a conclusion, as there is a constant overflow and entangling, with some actors being ‘stolen away’ and new ones joining.

The contribution of the model of translation (Callon, 1986) to policy analysis is clear. As well as identifying progress, the idea of translation can be useful for looking at how ideas come to be silenced within the policy making process. The concept of a ‘token’ in

translation can be a particular effective way to trace policy (Edwards, 2009), although is often associated with ‘early’ ANT research²⁸.

A token can be discourse(s) or objects. Latour (1987) utilised the idea of a ‘token’ to challenge the widely held view that ideas and objects ‘diffuse’ through society, instead arguing that the “spread of anything – claims, orders, artefacts, goods – is in the hands of people” (Latour, 1986, p. 267). Therefore, the ‘spread’ or enactment of a policy agenda relies on actors engaging with it and sharing it with others. However, the model of translation shows that when actors pick up a token, they change it in some way. This is explained best by Gaskell and Hepburn (1998):

The token is usually not passed unchanged from hand to hand…

The token is either ignored or taken up by people who see their interests translated within it. In the process of shaping it to their interests, these people usually modify the token. The path of the token is a product of the number and strength of the links that are established between it and a diverse group of other actors. It is not a product of an initial quality but of the subsequent actions of a multitude of others. (p. 66)

In the context of this research, the agenda set out in TSF in the form of recommendations can be ignored or taken up and translated as different interests are invested in it; this can be

28 In more recent ANT research, the term ‘boundary object’ has come to replace that of ‘token’ (see ???

applied directly to the work of the NPG. Gaskell and Hepburn (1998, p. 56) state that as these actors take up and use the token, their actions are changed as they begin to see new possibilities with it. Edwards (2009) suggests that the translation of a token is possible because tokens are, by their very nature, unfinished; therefore, patterns of possibility can be inscribed into them.

By utilising this concept of the translation of a token, it is possible for me to describe and conceptualise what happened to the report’s recommendations and its overarching

philosophy as it entered a messy and complex policy making process.

In the model of translation, interests are defined as goals, motivations and expectations of actors (Callon, 1986; Gaskell & Hepburn, 1998; Latour, 1986). In the context of my research, the interests that have potential to strengthen, distort or silence the policy agenda are institutional in nature. For example, the participation of actors brought in to represent organsiations like the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) or the Association of Directors in Education in Scotland (ADES) is understood as being shaped and guided by the interests and agendas of those organisations. The action of actors in the network is guided by the promotion of particular positional goods²⁹.

Since there is a great variety of actor within a network, it is important to note the difference between the term ‘actor’ and ‘institutional actor’, especially as it applies to the focus of my research. I use the term ‘actor’ to refer to the human actor who was brought into the

process to represent an organisation (I also use the term ‘representative’). I use the term

‘institutional actor’ to refer to the organisation that the actor/representative represents.

Therefore, the interests that are of significance to this research and its findings are those of the institutional actor, not the individuals who are actors at the behest of an organization.

The multiple layers and complications that arise from the variety of voices and interests are analysed and discussed in depth in Chapters 4 and 5. But I include these distinctions here as they pertain to my methodologies. One benefit of drawing on ANT ideas is that it allows the researcher to take a step back from the human as human interests and beliefs are not prioritised.

29 This is not to say that individual and personal factors do not shape participation. However, the focus of this research is an exploration of the way actors participate in the process in order to translate institutional interests into continuously evolving policy agenda.

Critique of ANT

Although ANT appears a suitable method for tracing the development and enactment of policy, it has received much criticism, the majority of which appears to be based on the point I made above: its lack of regard for human consciousness. ANT’s insistence that humans and non-humans must be treated analytically in the same way is the claim that ANT-sceptics often find most difficult to accept. It is true that non-human actors can play a role in the action and behaviour of human actors and the decisions that they make;

however, it is difficult to disregard the power of human intent and consciousness,

particularly within the policy making process, which could be regarded as a highly emotive process, involving much contestation, debate, argument, mediation, and disagreement, as well as agreement. To achieve a positive result some sort of consensus must be reached, and this is rarely a smooth process.

Indeed, many ANT critics accuse it of failing to recognise what is fundamentally human and subjective in communication and action during social processes. For example, Murdoch (1998) argues that ANT should adapt its stance of ‘radical symmetry’ to allow for the realisation that humans are different from objects because humans are capable of making symbolic meaning of events and can exert intentional action, whereas objects cannot.

The reason that ANT does not “privilege human consciousness or intention” (Edwards, 2009, p.5) is because it asserts that inanimate and animate objects are to be treated as materially equal. This so-called ‘symmetry’ between the human and non-human occurs because “human powers increasingly derive from the complex interconnections of humans

In document Policy processes, professionalism and partnership: an exploration of the implementation of 'Teaching Scotland's Future' (Page 59-69)